Gary
I'm just jumping in here because of some possible misunderstandings or misconceptions.
>In case it is lost on you, I developed using Foxpro/VFP since circa 1989/1995 respectively. So, I am aware of the arguments from both sides of the fence. I just think that for Perrti to glibly make reference to the AddProperty function and compare it to the lines of code that Andrus produced for Alex needed squaring off somewhat.
It really wasn't meant as a glib reference for glibness' sake -- it is, after all, true that you need to do a lot of work to add a run-time property in .NET (if that's what you need to do for whatever reason), compared to the amount of effort needed in VFP. By saying this I am NOT saying that VFP is *generally* superior to .NET or any other language for that matter. There are many things that VFP (and other xBase languages) do much better than most other languages out there, and for certain situations and applications it is simply the best possible tool -- sometimes it has to do with economics (cost of infrastructure, tools and deployment), sometimes it has to do with technically superior ways of doing things. This door, I'm keenly aware, swings many ways.
However, it should be fine and even desirable for people to compare the strengths and weaknesses between different languages and approaches, because that way all languages can evolve, by learning from others. It shouldn't ruffle .NET programmers' feathers if a VFP programmer points out simpler or better ways of doing things in his language of choice. And vice versa. What's the big deal?
>
>It seems that a lot of Fox devs seem to be placing high hopes on the "ethnologica" offering to keep themselves relevant going forward - I sincerely hope that they are backing the right horse and that the company in question realize a commercial advantage for their efforts in trying to do what MS was not prepared to do. The Fox community tend to like things "for free" and as much of the Fox third party market realized over the years, if it isn't cheap, it won't sell. Time will tell.
I think many VFP programmers are following eTecnologia and other similar developments with interest rather than "placing high hopes" on such alpha-stage fare. Can't speak for the others, but at this time I personally am not making any serious development plans based on any of these products at least until/if they come out of alpha and go into stable beta. None of the other developers I have talked to about these possibilities seem to feel any differently -- there are no "high hopes", there is just "keen interest".
As for the "for free" -part, the entire IT industry has been moving into that direction lately, in case you haven't noticed. Linux, Progress SQL, Python, ... Of course, no company can stay in business by providing great stuff for free, but I believe the business model is somewhat similar to the original dBase and Foxpro's -- you give out a lot of things for free but (e.g., VFP exe deployment), charge for certain things (e.g., VFP development tools), hoping to eventually reach critical mass, where quantity matters more than units sold, and proceeds from a million additional units sold at a lower cost exceed the proceeds of a thousand units sold at a higher cost. This didn't work too well in the past because of collateral and shipping costs, but in today's connected "downloadable" world it works quite well, when the cost of materials & shipping per additional unit is practically nothing (that is, free!).
>
>I guess I made all the same arguments that you and others make for VFP's superiority and I argued with you and for you against the likes of JVP and the PA crew. However, after using .NET in many commercial environments, I can tell you that there is no occasion that I have ever wished I had VFP to handle the job. I have seen your arguments about how you can only do your data-intensive stuff using VFP and if that is your experience, then good for you. However, a number of applications that I have been involved with have been to replace VFP applications in enterprise-scale environments. The Fox developers sniggered and sneered that we would fail for many of the data oriented reasons you have cited. However, they were wrong and the systems succeeded over and above expectations. Those companies no longer employ VFP developers ... 'nuff said.
It is great that you've found such success with .NET, and sounds to me like it is the best tool for the kind of application you use it for. If your company and/or your clients have the resources to invest in the training, licenses, tools and infrastructure necessary to make big applications like yours run properly, that's great. A lot of small time developers out there, however, can not sell their wares if, for example, their system requires a bunch of SQL server licenses or upgraded computers on the client site.
IMO there are many good reasons why .NET is more of a "corporate tool" and VFP is more of a "mom & pop" tool. Some of those reasons are technical, some pure perception and some business/financial. Personally, they both have their place in my toolbox, although I do find myself thinking wistfully almost daily about the many aspects that make things easier and/or more powerful with language "A" when I am working with language "B", and vice versa.
As the failed experiment a few decades ago of making Esperanto the universal world language proved, there is no one language that fits all occasions and locations, and in the area of computer languages I certainly am not advocating such concept, either.
Pertti
